SIMILARCASE

Loading

ADJ19483679 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ19483679 · May 15, 2026

Petition for reconsideration denied

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 0
Authorities named: 1
District office: San Francisco

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration denied

Petition for reconsideration of the Finding of Fact issued on February 9, 2026, denying subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Jurisdiction / venueDefendant prevailed

Applicant was hired in Florida, worked in Florida, and sustained injuries in Florida; no statutory basis for California subject matter jurisdiction exists despite contract law choice of California law and remote supervision from California.

From the decision · page 4On February 9, 2026, the WCJ issued his Finding of Fact, determining that "California does not have subject matter jurisdiction" over applicant's claim. (Finding of Fact, at p. 2.) The Opinion on Decision, issued concurrently, explains that the WCJ's decision was based upon a finding that applicant was hired in Florida, worked in Florida, and sustained her alleged injuries there. (Opinion on Decision, at pp. 5§ 6.) The WCJ noted that the employment contract, while referencing the laws of California, did not reference workers' compensation law. (Id. at pp. 5, 7.)

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Applicant was hired in Florida by signing the employment contract and accepting the offer in Florida.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact establishes no statutory basis for California subject matter jurisdiction under Labor Code sections 3600.5 and 5305.

From the decision · page 8As to the location of applicant's hire, the parties stipulated that applicant signed the employment contract in Florida. (MOH/SOE, 6/19/2025, at p. 2.) Applicant's testimony at trial makes clear that Aravo offered her employment, and that she accepted that offer of employment while in Florida, by signing the contract. (MOH/SOE, 9/8/2025, at p. 4.) Under binding appellate precedent, the location of hire for the purposes of sections 3600.5(a) and 5305 is the location the offeree accepts the offer of employment. (See Bowen v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 15, 21-22; Tripplett v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at 565§ 66.)

Applicant worked remotely from Florida and never physically worked or lived in California.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This fact negates the general grant of jurisdiction under Labor Code section 5300 for injuries occurring in California.

From the decision · page 2The matter proceeded to trial, initially on July 9, 2025, with additional trial dates on September 8, 2025 and November 13, 2025. The sole issue listed for trial was statutory subject matter jurisdiction over applicant's claim pursuant to Labor Code1 sections 3600.5 and 5305. (Minutes of Hearing / Summary of Evidence ("MOH/SOE"), 6/19/2025, at p. 2.) The parties stipulated that applicant signed the employment contract in Florida, that applicant resides in Florida, and that applicant did not ever physically work in California. (Ibid.)

Applicant's alleged injury occurred in Florida, not California.

Favours Defendant prevailed

The locus of injury being outside California means no subject matter jurisdiction exists under the statutes.

From the decision · page 8applicant was injured in California, and therefore the argument for general statutory subject matter jurisdiction under section 5300.5 Applicant's alleged injury occurred in Florida, not in California.